I do not, and can not, trust this woman. Everything about her, every word she says, every facial expression she makes just oozes with pre-planned, pre-packaged, faux-sincerity and strategy. I firmly believe that she does not stand for anything. There is not a truthful, convicted, seriously committed cell in her body. I believe that she will do whatever it takes to get elected, and I think she's a very driven woman. She wants the oval office and she will do whatever is necessary to get there. If that means becoming a puppet, she's willing to do that. Any view that is fashionable in the current social climate she will latch onto and put her pursey-faced smile on it as a seal of All-American, Democratic approval.

The above article is, to me, a shameless co-optation of an image and is nothing more than a clever advertising strategy. This lovely little political move calls out to any woman who has ever been scorned or cheated upon, and pulls out the Jesus card for every single bible-thumping, anti-divorce fundie this country is harboring.

Oh, the Lawd got me through it. Heavens, I don't know how I would've survived! ... oh, and P.S.

Clinton acknowledged that talking about her religious beliefs doesn't come naturally to her. "I take my faith very seriously and very personally," she said. "And I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves.

How convenient. While Obama sticks to policy instead of personal (Thank God.) and Edwards is out gushing about his love for his Lord Jesus Christ in his pleasantly coordinated tie, Hillary suddenly slips out a hint of her "personal" faith. Smack dab in the middle. Oh, I gots me some serious personal faith, but I won't talk about it. So dun worry. [insert pursey-faced smile here]

Mind you, I'm all for the separation of church and state because I think they both need protection from one another. If history has proven anything it's that the combination of church and government inevitably equals disaster in some form, and probably a fair few atrocities will be committed along the way. Whether it's alienation, hostility, exclusion, persecution, war, or genocide... these are not things we need to be doing. I think it's best if these two powers sit in their own respective corners, and the twain shall not meet.

And I am fully aware that this wouldn't even be in issue if the conservative side of this system hadn't been touting their faith and conviction as a strong reason to oppose the licentious, Godless liberals since, oh I don't know, always. All of this is insincere religious parroting in an attempt to eke out votes from a specifically identified segment of the population, and for that you can thank demographic market research, but whatever, man! What happened to rising above the game instead of joining in? That whole "be the better man" mantra. Ringing any bells? Anyone?

Also, I know it isn't Hillary's fault (well, maybe I don't... come to think of it. Her P.R. people are pretty good and let's face it, the woman has connections.) that she's in the headline of this story when all three leading Democratic candidates spoke at this little shindig of cross-continental church movers and shakers. It isn't Hillary's fault that Barack was barely mentioned (Or is it?) while the rest of the article is about the religious carnival the Democratic candidates have been throwing this past week on various media outlets, asserting their faith for the public record.

Seriously though, what does Clinton actually stand for? Is there anything that she says that isn't a finely polished talking point? Is there anything she says that isn't riddled with loopholes and vagaries? Can you get a solid answer out of her on anything?

The answer is, of course, no. She is a trained politician, a real pro. She's got the "I cannot recall" down pat and a whole laundry-list of pre-programmed responses that can get her out of any fix or provocative question. Seriously, I am so disgusted by her unctuousness that I can't even get excited about the possibility of a woman being president, because I know if she is the first we probably won't have another one for at least 200 more years. I cannot even begin to imagine her administration doing well; especially not following this one. Think of the bumper stickers. Would there be room for her running-mate next to her tenacity and ego? Or should it just read Clinton & Slime '08?

Comments

she didn't just start talking about her faith to become some religious darling. she was INVITED by Jim Wallis TO TALK ABOUT HER FAITH at an event specifically about candidates' faith... with edwards and obama. and she gave an honest answer. Its just that HER answer was a headline because she's Hillary.

Clinton stands for moderate, intelligent leadership. I think this is you feeding back what people who don't know what they're talking about (i.e. right wing talk radio) say about her. This is a big blown up caricature you're describing, thats not really based in any fact. She's NO MORE a politician than Obama or Edwards, or McCain or Romney (who are blatant panderers). But because her husband was president, people think she's some new brand of evil.

Also, I know it isn't Hillary's fault (well, maybe I don't... come to think of it. Her P.R. people are pretty good and let's face it, the woman has connections.) that she's in the headline of this story when all three leading Democratic candidates spoke at this little shindig of cross-continental church movers and shakers.

I'm not saying it's convenient for her to suddenly be religious. It's convenient that she's right smack in the middle. She's a closet Christian but she won't talk about it so the atheists and church separatists won't be angreh. It's convenient that she can use it as a tool to build empathy from every broken-hearted woman that has ever turned to Jesus. It's all suspiciously convenient.

I don't think I'm just feeding back what other people are saying. I don't even know what other people are saying about her, this is all my reaction to what I see. I'm just stripping away the glitz and the gloss of politics. It's ugly under there, and I would do it for any candidate you want.

Edwards' son died in a car crash. I suppose THAT's even MORE convenient that HE turned to god to get him through THAT so he could get sympathy from EVERYONE. Just like Hillary planted Monica (with future presidential aspirations, banking on people's sympathy), i'm sure that Edwards set up his son's car crash so that he could run for senate.

You're taking this too far. I'm saying that her stance, her right smack dab in the middle between Edwards and Obama is strategic. And it is. Trying to pretend that it isn't is idiocy. You said yourself she's a great compromiser, a good politician, good at locating the middle ground. Well she does it to create her own image too. Her middle-of-the-road, "safe Democrat" image.

Everything you touched upon is why I disagree with the way our political system is run. I'm not saying the system itself is bad, nor am I in any position to propose an alternative (at least not something thought out enough to function). But the idea that voting for a face when the people behind the face that I don't see (or, at least, don't see as much of) are making most/all of the decisions doesn't sit well with me.

But the fact is a politician isn't allowed to be human. The person has to try so hard to act supremely, unconditionally human that, when a moment is taken (such as you did above) to actually assess both the situation and the actions taken, there isn't a shred of humanity found within.

So, instead of honesty, integrity, and reliability, we have a system so worried about standing on the middle ground that it doesn't realize there's no longer a middle ground to be stood upon.

I don't really even have a problem with that. I'm okay with the principles of socialism and I think when you start with a country that isn't economically doomed it could work. I don't know that it'd be better than our current circus, though.

I'm afraid of her becoming president too, but for different reasons. She's so good at selling herself. At latching onto what the public is interested in, she just reaks of disingenuity. I'm worried about what would happen when a person who has no solid stance on the issues besides what will get her elected will actually do. Will she stick to the cause of the people? If so, that'd be phenomenal... but I very much doubt it.